Antisemitism on university campuses

Approximate read time: 20 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to consider the following question for short debate on 7 May 2025:

Lord Cryer (Labour) to ask His Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to eliminate antisemitism on university campuses.

1. Background: International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and its adoption

1.1 Previous Conservative government’s adoption of the definition

The UK government formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism in December 2016.^[1] This defines antisemitism as:

[…] a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.^[2]

The IHRA, an intergovernmental body established in Stockholm in 1998 that now comprises 35 member and eight observer states, including the UK, agreed the non-legally binding definition earlier that year.^[3] It provides the following statement with examples of how antisemitism may manifest in practice to accompany the definition:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion
• making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions
• accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews
• denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (for example gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during the second world war (the Holocaust)
• accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
• accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations
• denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour
• applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
• using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (for example, claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis
• drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
• holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel

The UK government’s adoption of the IHRA’s working definition came on the same day the then Department for Communities and Local Government responded to a House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report on antisemitism in the UK. This had recommended the government adopt the definition, but with two “additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate”.^[4] The committee proposed the definition should also include these statements:

• It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
• It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.^[5]

The government declined to agree these clarifications were required. It said in its response that references within the definition were clear that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” and argued this was “sufficient to ensure freedom of speech”.^[6]

1.2 Previous government’s call for universities to adopt the definition

In 2019 the then government called on universities in England to adopt the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism as part of the sector’s “efforts to tackle unacceptable religious hatred in higher education”.^[7]

In an October 2020 debate on universities’ adoption of the IHRA’s working definition, Vicky Ford, then a parliamentary under secretary of state at the Department for Education, repeated the government’s earlier calls for universities to adopt the definition.^[8] However, she acknowledged that universities were “autonomous institutions” and that “as such, the decision on whether to adopt the definition rests with individual providers”.

A few days after the debate, Gavin Williamson, then secretary of state for education, wrote to universities to urge more institutions to adopt the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. He said the number of bodies that had adopted the definition up until then remained “shamefully low”.^[9] He added he would “consider options” to increase adoption, including “directing the Office for Students [OfS] to impose a new regulatory condition of registration and suspending funding streams for universities at which antisemitic incidents occur and which have not signed up to the definition”.

In a question for short debate on antisemitic incidents in January 2021, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, then a parliamentary under secretary of state at the Ministry of Justice, expanded on the government’s position:

[…] in urging providers to adopt this definition, […] the government is not impinging on their autonomy; it is their decision how to fulfil their duties under the law. However, if institutions do not demonstrate that they are taking their responsibilities seriously, we will consider going further to ensure that all providers are tackling antisemitism.^[10]

Mr Williamson later wrote to the OfS to request the body undertake a “scoping exercise to identify providers which are reluctant to adopt the definition and consider introducing mandatory reporting of antisemitic incident numbers by providers”.^[11] He added:

This would ensure a robust evidence base, which the OfS could then use to effectively regulate in this area. If antisemitic incidents do occur at a provider, the OfS should consider if it is relevant in a particular case whether the provider has adopted the definition when considering what sanctions, including monetary penalties, would be appropriate to apply.^[12]

Universities UK, which represents higher education bodies, has asked its members to consider adopting the IHRA definition as part of their approaches to tackling antisemitism.^[13] The National Union of Students (NUS) also uses the IHRA definition.^[14] Both bodies issued a joint letter ahead of the 2024/25 academic year outlining their efforts to tackle antisemitism.^[15]

1.3 Reported scale of adoption among UK universities and selected objections to the definition

The OfS maintains a list of UK higher education providers that have adopted the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. This is based on publicly available information and confirmation of adoption from providers, and was originally compiled in response to the government’s 2021 request for such a list.^[16]

The Campaign Against Antisemitism, which describes itself as a “volunteer-led charity dedicated to exposing and countering antisemitism through education and zero-tolerance enforcement of the law”, also reports on UK higher education providers’ adoption of the IHRA’s definition.^[17] It lists 134 universities that have adopted the definition and 43 that have not done so. It considers six universities that have adopted the IHRA definition alongside the separate ‘Jerusalem declaration on antisemitism’ to not have properly adopted the IHRA definition, as it describes the Jerusalem declaration as a “wrecking document designed to undermine” the IHRA’s definition.

The Jerusalem declaration was drafted in response to the IHRA’s working definition.^[18] The declaration’s preamble argues the IHRA definition is “unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations”, and because of this has “caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism”. The preamble further states the declaration aims to provide a “clearer core definition” of antisemitism and a “coherent set of guidelines” in order to “strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested” and to “protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine”. Its original signatories proposed the non-legally binding declaration as an alternative to the IHRA definition, or a “tool for interpreting” the earlier definition for any institutions that had already adopted it. The declaration currently has around 370 signatories, including academics based at UK universities.

Others have objected to the UK government’s adoption of the IHRA’s working definition. For example:

• Geoffrey Robertson QC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, has argued the working definition is not fit for purpose and the “looseness of the definition is liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel and coverage of human rights abuses against Palestinians”.^[19]
• Professor David Feldman, director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and a signatory to the Jerusalem declaration, has called the IHRA’s definition “confusing and divisive”.^[20]
• Some lawyers and retired judges, including Lord Hendy (Labour), have argued the IHRA’s working definition undermines freedom of expression and it was wrong of the previous Conservative government to seek to instruct universities to adopt it.^[21]
• The European Legal Support Centre and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies have alleged the IHRA’s working definition “conflates criticisms of Israel with antisemitism” and has led to “restrictions on the freedom of speech of staff and students”.^[22]

2. Reported rise in antisemitic incidents on university campuses

The Community Security Trust (CST) is a UK charity that works to protect Jews from antisemitism and other threats and regularly reports on antisemitic incidents on UK campuses.^[23] In its most recent biennial report on the issue, covering 2022 to 2024, the CST recorded 325 university-related antisemitic incidents in the last two full academic years (53 incidents in 2022/23 and 272 in 2023/2024).^[24] It noted this represented a 117% increase from the 150 university incidents recorded in 2020–2022, the period covered in the charity’s previous report. It added:

• In 2023/24, the 272 university-related antisemitic incidents recorded by CST marked the highest total recorded for a single academic year. This can primarily be attributed to the wave of anti-Jewish hatred following the 7 October [2023] Hamas terror attack on Israel and the subsequent ongoing war in the Middle East that has led to a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents nationwide. CST recorded 85 university incidents in October 2023, which accounted for over a year’s worth of incidents in a single month and included 11 threats towards Jewish students and the wider Jewish community. In comparison, the previous record monthly total of university-related antisemitic incidents was 55 during the 2021 Israel-Gaza war.
• Over the last two academic years, 81% of university-related incidents were categorised as abusive behaviour, totalling 264 incidents. This category includes all forms of verbal and written antisemitism both online and offline, other than those that include direct threats.
• 23 threats were made to Jewish students in the academic year 2023/24 compared to three university-related threats in 2022/23. Of the 26 university-related incidents in the category of threats over the past two academic years, 16 occurred online and 10 offline.
• There were 10 instances of assault, one occurring in the academic year 2022/23 in Leeds, and nine in 2023/24, two of which occurred in Cambridge and one each in Belfast, St Andrews, Exeter, Birmingham, Middlesex, Wandsworth and Hertfordshire. In one incident, eggs were thrown at a group of visibly Jewish students in St Andrews, while returning from an event with the chief rabbi.
• There were 21 instances of damage and desecration of Jewish property over the past two academic years, four occurring in the academic year 2022/23 and 17 in 2023/24. These took place in Nottingham, Birmingham, Leeds, Kent, Norwich, London, Sussex, Oxford, Liverpool, Canterbury, Brighton and Sheffield. In one case, the Leeds Hillel House (a Jewish student centre) was vandalised with graffiti stating “IDF off campus” and “Free Palestine”.
• CST recorded four university incidents involving the distribution of mass-produced antisemitic literature in the academic years 2022/23 and 2023/24, two taking place in each academic year.^[25]

The report further stated that of the 325 recorded incidents in 2022/23 and 2023/24, 152 took place online, 130 occurred on campus, and 43 took place off campus. In addition, it said 24 university incidents were recorded as having been perpetrated by staff and 21 as involving students’ union officers or student societies.^[26]

The report included a number of recommendations for universities in the light of these incidents:

• An independent process for complaints of discrimination, bigotry or hateful language should be developed by universities. This means ensuring that staff assessing complaints do not have a known or close relationship with the member of staff or student involved, where possible engaging external advisers with specialist expertise in the type of discrimination or bigotry being alleged.
• Institutions ought to ensure that the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is accompanied by training for staff who will be investigating complaints so that they know how to use the definition, and have a wider understanding of the nature, language and impact of antisemitism on British campuses.
• In times of heightened tension, universities should take care to formulate public stances and messaging that emphasise support for all students and do not ostracise Jewish students.
• Universities should take care to act on complaints within a reasonable timeframe. Where delays cannot be avoided every effort should be made to ensure frequent communication to inform the student of delays, progress made and when they can expect a response.
• Ensure the confidentiality of students reporting incidents where possible.
• Initial complaint and/or reporting forms should incorporate a specific space for students to say that they have specifically been the victim of an antisemitic hate crime.
• Universities should take action to ensure that encampments are not established in central areas of campus that impede or obstruct the regular flow of student life and that external individuals are restricted in their ability to access formal and informal (but established) student groups on university property. Appropriate investigation and disciplinary procedures must be taken against students who promote antisemitism or other forms of extremism.^[27]

The NUS issued a statement following the CST report’s publication recommitting to tackling antisemitic incidents.^[28] Both the NUS and Universities UK had also previously written to Sami Berkoff, president of the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) (who wrote a foreword to the CST report), in response to her earlier call for action plans to safeguard Jewish students ahead of the start of the 2024/25 academic year.^[29]

The CST has separately reported a significant rise in the number of antisemitic incidents in the UK since the outbreak of the current conflict in the Middle East. In a report published in February 2025, it recorded 3,528 antisemitic incidents across the UK in 2024. It said this was the “second-highest annual total ever reported to CST”, following the 4,296 antisemitic incidents recorded in 2023; 1,662 incidents in 2022; 2,261 incidents in 2021; and 1,684 incidents in 2020.^[30]

3. UK government policy since October 2023

3.1 Previous Conservative government policy

In the days following the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, Rishi Sunak, the then prime minister, announced £3mn in additional funding for the CST to provide more protection to Jewish communities.^[31] This brought government funding to the CST to £18mn a year.^[32] Later that month he said the UK government had “zero tolerance for antisemitism […] in any form”.^[33]

In November 2023 the Department for Education confirmed it had written to university leaders to “remind them that they should act swiftly against any threats to Jewish students’ safety and welfare”.^[34] The department also published a five-point plan to deal with antisemitism on university campuses. The same month, in the autumn statement, the government announced an additional £7mn over three years to tackle antisemitism in education.^[35]

In a speech at the CST’s annual dinner in February 2024, Mr Sunak announced £54mn of new funding to maintain government support to the organisation of £18mn a year until 2028. He also called on university leaders to “take personal responsibility for protecting Jewish students in their institutions” and said the government would be arranging a meeting with vice chancellors at 10 Downing Street to discuss the issue.^[36] This meeting later took place in May 2024.^[37]

Also in May 2024, Michael Gove, then serving as secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, gave a speech on antisemitism in which he called on universities to “sign up to a charter against antisemitism, adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and make clear that antisemitic agitation will be met with clear disciplinary action”.^[38]

3.2 Current Labour government policy

In July 2024 the new Labour government said antisemitism had “absolutely no place in our society, and tackling antisemitism is a top priority for this government”.^[39] It said it would continue to fund the Community Security Trust, “supporting their vital work in protecting Jewish communities”.

On antisemitism on university campuses in particular, the following month the government reiterated the previous government’s position that as “autonomous institutions, universities are responsible for tackling antisemitism on campus and should have processes in place to deal with unlawful abuse and harassment”.^[40] It added it would “continue to work closely with Jewish groups, including the Union of Jewish Students and the University Jewish Chaplaincy, to understand their concerns and what further action is needed”.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer gave a speech at the Holocaust Educational Trust in September 2024. He acknowledged Jewish students had been targeted on university campuses, before adding, “Just as I fought to bring my party back from the abyss of antisemitism, I promise you I will do the same in leading the country”.^[41] Sir Keir later hosted a meeting with Jewish community organisations, including the CST and the UJS, to discuss measures the government could take to improve life for the Jewish community in the UK. These included a call from the UJS for anonymised reporting for students facing abuse on campus.^[42]

The following month, on the first anniversary of the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson confirmed the previous government’s allocation of £7mn to help tackle antisemitism in education.^[43] Writing for the Daily Telegraph, she said the government was “resolutely committed” to tackling antisemitic abuse, adding:

It is completely unacceptable for Jewish students to feel they cannot fully participate in university life out of fear for their safety. All students, regardless of race or religion, should be free to focus on their studies rather than worry about their safety.^[44]

Ministers at the Department for Education separately confirmed the government regularly met with Universities UK, the UJS, the University Jewish Chaplaincy and the CST to discuss antisemitism on university campuses.^[45]

In March 2025, in response to an oral question on the CST’s latest report on antisemitism on university campuses, Minister for Women and Equalities Baroness Smith of Malvern said the government would “shortly host a round table with vice chancellors to discuss, among other matters, how the report’s recommendations might be implemented”.^[46] The government subsequently confirmed at the end of April 2025 that this round table would soon take place.^[47]

4. Read more

• Community Security Trust, ‘Campus antisemitism in Britain 2022–2024’, 9 December 2024
• Home Office, ‘Home secretary speech at the Community Security Trust’, 27 March 2025
• Oral question on ‘Campus antisemitism in Britain: Community Security Trust report’, HL Hansard, 12 March 2025, cols 695–9
• House of Commons Library, ‘Increases in antisemitic offences’, 8 January 2024
• Debate on ‘Antisemitic offences’, HC Hansard, 9 January 2024, cols 33–57WH
• Parliamentary Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education, ‘Understanding Jewish experience in higher education’, 22 May 2023; and ‘A good practice guide: Eight simple steps for facilitating Jewish life and tackling antisemitism in higher education’, 22 May 2023
• House of Lords Library, ‘Antisemitic incidents in universities: Community Security Trust report’, 15 January 2021
• QSD on ‘Antisemitism: University campus incidents’, HL Hansard, 21 January 2021, cols 83–97GC

---

Cover image by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash.